News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


BVince

  • Karma: +0/-0
As modern technology increases one's ability to hit the ball further than the previous year, the way that golf courses are designed in the future MUST change to stay relevant for the increasing amount of players that can drive the ball in the 275+ distance range.  It is simple physics, a simple miss-hit with increasing club head speed has the ability to drift further off line thus creating the need for hazards located further away from the immediate fairway.

I spent some time in thought over the past few days about the Dustin Johnson situation and the 1200ish bunkers located at Whistling Straits.  There is much uproar about these bunkers being excessive and that they are mostly there for eye candy.  However, if you think about all of the modern day player missed shots, they are traveling 20, 30, and even 40 yards off of the intended target line. 

I understand that adding these hazards for a minority group of players may seem like an unnecessary expense that could be considered unrealistic or flashy eye candy.  However, like it or not, these features need to considered as the CGA industry progresses just as the game continues to evolve.

How much more land will be required to improve player safety due to shots that carry further offline?  Will adding these hazards be too expensive and therefor be left off the original design or removed later to save maintenance dollars? 

I can tell you that I am in this group of people that can carry the ball a long way, and golf course architects in the future will need to consider these hazards becoming more and more relevant.  Most often, I can take some of the strategy out of the game due to length by being about to hit it past most of the trouble areas into more friendly landing zones. Shouldn't a player that hits the ball 280-320 get severely penalized for missing a shot 30 yards versus having a perfect lie on another fairway or be past all the trouble? 
If profanity had an influence on the flight of the ball, the game of golf would be played far better than it is. - Horace Hutchinson

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2010, 04:46:39 AM »
Byron,

I think there are two different issues here.

One is of great concern and that is where a player can bypass all the trouble and strategically loctated hazards by belting it over them.

The second, which your post is mostly focussed on, concening wayward shots (drives in particular) isn't such a big issue in my opinion. The pros of today have such amazing short games. If their approach from the rough does miss the green, they more often than not get up-and-down to save par. I don't see a situation where architects start locating hazards 30 yards off fairways. It's would be too costly, and wouldn't it make more sense to just let the grass grow a bit longer. Pros prefer sand to long grass anyway, so let them deal with long grass instead.

Maybe it's an issue on some courses squeezed into small areas, where many of the holes run parallel.

We don't see too many situations today where the pros are deliberately hitting drives onto other fairways, or taking shortcuts as the maestro Ballesteros did at Lytham all those years ago.

Aren't the mis-hits less wayward nowadays as a result of the improvements in technology.

Jason Connor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2010, 02:21:32 PM »
I agree.  Protecting against very wayward shots isn't really a big deal.

Plant trees.  Don't mow the rough but once a year out there.  If you hit 40 yards off line you can't be too picky.

That's easy to defend without designing in expensive-to-maintain hazards.

Here's any idea:  Build houses and put white stakes 40 yards off line.

We discovered that in good company there is no such thing as a bad golf course.  - James Dodson

Richard Choi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2010, 02:58:36 PM »
The tour playes fear the long rough MUCH more than most sand bunkers. These days, most of the bunkers are used mostly for framing purposes, I see no reason why you would want to place bunkers 30 or 40 yards away from fairway.

Fred Yanni

Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2010, 03:28:23 PM »
This strikes me as looking for a solution for an issue that impacts less than 1 or 2% of the players in the world.   I frankly have not seen this new influx of amateur and average players that can suddenly bomb the ball 275+ because of new technology.  The white tees continue to be more than 97-98% of the players can handle and the placement of hazzards at most courses continues to be well located for this group of players.  

For example I played Piping Rock this week.  We played the 6400+/- tees and for the entire group the fairway bunkers were placed perfectly.  I hit it plenty long and my mishits ended in trouble and my well hit drives carried the bunkers.  My guess this would have been true for me 20 years ago as well.  I would be concerned if my mishits were easily carrying the trouble, they are not.

Byron, my guess is you are a very good player and I don't know your age, but if you are long player today, you were a long player 20 years ago and would have been taking the "strategy" out of the game then as well.  I am 40 now and  technology has allowed me to gain decent yardage and increase my carry from when I played in college, but I can't think of very many golf holes where the original architectural strategies are obsolete today from when I played them 20 years ago.  

As for the professionals, they are so good in every facet of their games, moving some hazzards around is not going to make a meaningful impact to them for the rare "very" offline shot.

Frankly maybe they need to consider keeping the galleries further away from the fairways so the pros misses find some real trouble like for the rest of us  :)


« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 03:32:36 PM by Fred Yanni »

Fred Yanni

Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2010, 04:04:28 PM »
Also one other point from the Steve Smyer's interview thread on this site

"Finally, consider that driving distance on all tours worldwide has been stable since 2002. I believe technology from a distance perspective is now absolutely stable. The bigger unknown is a modern-day athlete. I have a 17-year old who’s really good. I see his talent level and think about elite players in the future and I marvel at where they might be 30 years ago. Tiger was the first who really trained…now they all do it."

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 05:00:05 PM by Fred Yanni »

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2010, 04:24:12 PM »
Come on Mr. Yanni, wake up and smell the roses.

It's pretty clear that it has been the ball that has resulted in the distance changes. That is pretty much accepted on this site. It is also a background to Geoff's poking fun at Mr. Smyers.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 04:47:15 PM by Garland Bayley »
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Fred Yanni

Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2010, 04:28:00 PM »
GB - I worte a very nice response that some how got deleted as my session timed out - I agree 100% about the impact of the ball.  I will get back to it later as if I miss our dinner reservation with my lovely wife who has no issue with 5 golf trips a year I will be in a heap of hurt tonight.





  
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 05:17:27 PM by Fred Yanni »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2010, 06:00:29 PM »

Bryon

It’s an interesting topic but I feel the issue keeps coming back to the old question on controlling the technology which in return will control ball travel. When the Professionals can drive the 18th Green from the Tee at TOC negating the need of the Valley of Sin, then I would have expected our Governing Bodies to take note.

Hazards by their very nature can be expensive to construct and also maintain Also the way the Professional game has gone over the last 10-15 years the hazards may well be out of date just as fast as modern computer software.

The wayward shot, in itself will serve as the hazard to the golfer, to commit funds for the possibility of an errant shot is just not feasible, so I feel it’s a non-starter.

We need to now address the problem of distance and the Professionals need to accept that the current state of affairs is just not tenable.  It may give you, the Professional or Scratch Golfer a great buzz but at what cost, the conversion of our great courses to a Pitch & Putt circus. Part of the way forward to resolving this problem is in your hands, you decide what is more important, a quick thrill of a 300yds drive or the future of the game and courses as we know them today.

I believe that we have to face the problem head on, a minor tweak with the ball will not cut it in the long run, we have to be drastic to allow the thrill of the game and enjoyment of hitting the ball as far as we can (not 300yards but max of up too 190/200yards) to remain at the heart of golf. I would not just roll back the ball but clubs as well to the standard of when many of the great courses were designed and opened. Yes I am talking about using technology to rate the club/ball to the days of the Haskell/Gutty period. Before you moan the games in the past are well documented and gave great joy to both spectators and players alike. Hickory players love the game and feel more akin to golf giving full entertainment and pleasure. It would still allow a quality golfer all his shots, the only casualty would be the sacrifice of the length of travel of the ball. The gains, playing the great courses again as they were designed and the real thrill of the game.

To move or add new hazards, make longer courses, etc. etc will not do much to improve the game in the long or for that matter the short term IHMO. The problem is no tests or course exercises/studies are being taken, no mods on a real roll back or club modification is taken place, so not information or data to put before the Governing Bodies or for that matter the Golfers themselves.

We need an open and serious debate, not just on this forum, but between clubs and the regional bodies and the Governing Authorities. Some test programs need to be agreed, with results being published, proving or disproving the viability of various ideas and suggestions.  Its not something that will be achieved overnight but in time the pressure on environmental and financial natures may well force the issue leaving us very little choice, we need to decide before being forced into a compromise.  We will force golfer away by ever increasing the costs, but what will be the result of doing next to nothing to resolve the current problem?

Melvyn

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #9 on: August 21, 2010, 07:53:39 AM »
Melvyn,
If the driver distance is limited to 200 yards, won't that render most all courses built in the last 40 years unplayable (unless we all play from the front tees!)

Melvyn Morrow

Re: The EVOLUTION of hazards and why it is needs to take place now...
« Reply #10 on: August 21, 2010, 09:50:18 AM »

Dan

Is that not better that those courses built in the 19th and early to middle 20th century.  We are sacrificing great courses for a handful of golfers, so why should we not limit a good to great drive to 200.

We always seem happy to increase or modify the older courses why not reduce the length of the newer ones?

Melvyn

PS Is the PGA Tour not just full of old Ladies, so front Tees seem appropriate  ;)